ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

lee_merrill

New member
And about whether sinful deeds can serve the purposes of God, about "suffering according to the will of God" (Peter) ...

"My Father is the husbandman" (John 15:1).

It is comforting to think of trouble, in whatever form it may come to, us, as a heavenly messenger, bringing us something from God. In its earthly aspect it may seem hurtful, even destructive; but in its spiritual out-working it yields blessing. Many of the richest blessings which have come down to us from the past are the fruit of sorrow or pain. We should never forget that redemption, the world's greatest blessing, is the fruit of the world's greatest sorrow. In every time of sharp pruning, when the knife is deep and the pain is sore, it is an unspeakable comfort to read, "My Father is the husbandman."

Doctor Vincent tells of being in a great hothouse where luscious clusters of grapes were hanging on every side. The owner said, "When my new gardener came, he said he would have nothing to do with these vines unless he could cut them clean down to the stalk; and he did, and we had no grapes for two years, but this is the result."

There is rich suggestiveness in this interpretation of the pruning process, as we apply it to the Christian life. Pruning seems to be destroying the vine, the gardener appears to be cutting it all away; but he looks on into the future and knows that the final outcome will be the enrichment of its life and greater abundance of fruit.

There are blessings we can never have unless we are ready to pay the price of pain. There is no way to reach them save through suffering. --Dr. Miller.

"I walked a mile with Pleasure,
She chattered all the way;
But left me none the wiser
For all she had to say.

"I walked a mile with Sorrow,
And ne'er a word said she;
But, oh, the things I learned from her
When sorrow walked with me."

(from Streams in the Desert, by Lettie Cowman)
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The Greek word is "eklegomai", and it used here:

Acts 7:5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.​

"Eklegomai" simply means to make a choice, or in this instance with Stephen, to be chosen, but the Greek word translated "elect," is "eklektos," which specifically designates Christ and those chosen IN HIM.

That's not a reference to salvation.

And here:

27 but God has chosenthe foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosenthe weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen , the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.​

And unless God is saving foolish things, that's not a reference to salvation.

You are quoting references to a different word ("eklegomai"), when I speak of "eklektos."

Further, the noun simply means "chosen."

Right. The word you proffer simply means chosen. The word translated "elect" is specific, and means to "select," by implication "favorites."

If God chooses Israel from among the nations to be His people, then they are His "elect", without reference to salvation.

Now you move away from your Greek language argument, to make a sweeping assumption, but as in the Greek, there is careful distinction made in the Hebrew language between simple choosing, and efficacious election.

The Hebrew word generally translated, "chosen," is "bachar," which denotes "to try."

However, the Hebrew word referring to God's elect, is "bachiyr." e.g. I Chronicles 16:13, Psalm 89:3, 105:42&43, Isaiah 43:20&21, 65:15. These few and specific verses refer to the spiritual remnant of individuals saved by the grace of God, and do not refer to the "chosen," ("bachar") nation of Israel as a whole.

In these passages God's elect people are identified specifically as being, "the seed of Jacob," "My servant David," "Abraham His servant," people I have formed for Myself," differentiating them from the unfaithful nation of Israel. Here is the contrast revealed by God between the "chosen" nation of Israel, and His "elect" and saved individuals:

"I was sought by those who did not ask for Me; I was found by those who did not seek Me. I said, 'Here I am, here I am,' to a nation that was not called by My name' . . .
Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold My servants shall drink, but you will be thirsty; behold, My servants shall rejoice, but you shall be ashamed; behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you shall cry for sorrow of heart and wail for grief of spirit. You shall leave your name as a curse to My chosen ("bachiyr"); for the Lord God will slay you, and call His servants by another name.'" Isaiah 65:1, 13-15


Thus, the chosen ("bachar") nation of Israel will be cursed, but out of her, God has elected ("bachiyr") His servants who are promised all the blessings of God.

Deut 14:2 "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Same Greek word in the LXX.

If you want the noun form:

Isa 43:20 "The beasts of the field will glorify Me, The jackals and the ostriches, Because I have given waters in the wilderness And rivers in the desert, To give drink to My chosen people .

The noun form matters. Isa. 43:20 uses "bachiyr", and Deut. 14:2 uses "bachar."

I consider the distinction to be important, but you are casually lumping references together without taking notice of the detailed nuances of the original Hebrew and Greek.


Mal 1:2 "I have loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "[Was] not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I have loved Jacob; 3 but I have hated Esau , and I have made his mountains a desolation and [appointed] his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." 4 Though Edom says, "We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins"; thus says the Lord of hosts, "They may build, but I will tear down; and [men] will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever." 5 Your eyes will see this and you will say, "The Lord be magnified beyond the border of Israel!"​

This is NOT about their salvation.

Right, because this is a different word used than "bachiyr" that specifies and identifies those elect who were/are saved by faith in the promises of God.

You fail to make careful distinction between the words used.

Nang
 

lee_merrill

New member
Based on I Sam. 15, God changes His mind in some situations, but will not change it in other cases. Conditional prophecy may or may not happen...
But then God is not changing his mind, only his response, with conditions that may or may not be fulfilled--the question is whether God changes his mind in unconditional matters, which it seems the Open View does say happens.

Any change of mind is consistent with His character. Malachi shows that God does not change His mind in a fickle or capricious way like humans do.
This is the Open View, and "God will not change his mind in a capricious way" is another way of qualifying these statements, but this is not good exegesis.

After the Fall, God was grieved and regretted making man and was going to wipe them out (But Noah...! whew). This is a change in God's disposition based on changing contingencies.
Yes, but there are other instances I quoted where it seems unconditional promises and covenants were reversed.

Muzicman said:
Israel are living by the Covenant they have with God, and God is honoring that Covenant. Why is this hard to see?
Because Israel was not living by the covenant, have you not read the account of Baal Peor, or the incident of the calf at mount Sinai? Why would God say to Moses "I will destroy them all and raise up a nation from you" if this was impossible because of a covenant?

So God really changed his mind here, according to the Open View, even in view of a covenant.

Jonah, before giving the prophecy, knew that this declaration was conditional, and declares as such right here.
Certainly, so then God did not change his overall plan, "Should I not be concerned?" Why this account is a proof text for the Open View I will never know...

Is there a descendant of David on David's throne?
So then God does speak and then not act, he can promise, and not fulfill?

As usual, we have no exegesis, or even a cite of Scripture. Just a vague reference.
Here are my thoughts on Jeremiah 18, you may respond to them if you wish...

Blessings,
Lee
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Just as thick as ever.



Yes. In one, Free will is possible. In the other, it is not.



Unfortunately, you cannot explain how free will decisions can be known before they are made.



Which is incompatible with free will.

Muz

Another quick question: Why is human free will imperialized over God's sovereignty here? I mean if we 'have' to negate something, why God's sovereignty for discussion?

I don't believe it is a matter of illogic as it is a difference in foundational premise.

I'd like to try one more time on this. I'm sure I'll never set the record straight, and I feel like Jeremiah sometimes (ever proclaiming, never really heard).

There is no way we can find contradiction in timelessness because it escapes sensibilities and logic, and really our perception to do so. We either take God at His Word, or we negate what He says.

God has foreknowledge because the Bible gives the term.

OV very much confuses this 'definition' and does not at all understand it. In discussing the actual term, I've never gotten any OV theist to actually state the very obvious. They either equate foreknowledge with foreordination or they equate it with predictability, but they never seem to get the definition correct nor acknowledge it is a Biblical term and mean the same thing the definition means.

Some will say God knows 'some' but this puts their own logic on trial. If God knows anything future, they are contradicting themselves in a logical conundrum by their own argument.

Foreknowledge simply means 'KNOWS' 'BEFORE' and it is a scripturally given term.

OV has to toss the term from their Bibles entirely before they could escape the implication: The OV logic handle is broken from scripture, therefore imperializes logic over revelation. What is revealed is that God has 'foreknowledge' despite how it disturbs logic ability to grasp it. To continually argue this is to argue against scripture, not 'my' logic.

Free will is a derived idea. God's sovereignty is a scriptural given. Illogical thought is a derivation, Foreknowledge is a scripturally given. How come OV continues to imperialize the derivatives and ignores the Scripturally implicit?

The only truly worthy free will discussion is related to our position in Christ. Until then we are 'robots' to sin without question with no ability to escape routine.

Once we are in Christ, we have a new set of routine possibilities where we can choose the two, but the color of a shirt isn't exactly earth shaking whether I'm truly free to choose or not. It is trivial. What is more important is whether we live for Christ or not and serving one of two masters. I simply cannot imperialize free will choices over His sovereignty. The only free will choice I think is worthy of discussion is whether I wake and do my own thing OR say "This is the day the Lord has made, I'll rejoice and be glad in it."

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Whoever practices sin is the slave of sin.
Joh 8:35 And the slave does not abide in the house forever, but the Son abides forever.
Joh 8:36 Therefore if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.

This is saying man has absolutely no free will until conversion. Our only meaningful discussion into free will is a salvific issue. The rest is mute.

Act 2:23 this One given to you by the before-determined counsel and foreknowledge of God.

1Pe 1:2 ...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...

Joh 13:11 For Jesus knew the one who was going to betray him. Foreknowledge

Ephesians 2:10 "...for good works that God prepared beforehand..." Foreordination

There is a difference between these definitions: guess, plan, and know.

If foreknowledge negates free will, it is still a scripturally given contention that must be recognized and evaluated honestly and biblically. Just saying it is 'illogical' is not a compelling argument to me because my logic is subject to the fall and I hold all other's logical problems as subject to that same fall. God's revelation is right regardless. Foreknowledge is a scripturally given concept, God has it. Logic is troubled. I dare not negate a scriptural truth for a derived or logically apparent one (as opposed to logically implicit).

Respectfully

Lon
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
"Eklegomai" simply means to make a choice, or in this instance with Stephen, to be chosen, but the Greek word translated "elect," is "eklektos," which specifically designates Christ and those chosen IN HIM.

You are quoting references to a different word ("eklegomai"), when I speak of "eklektos."

It's the same root put into noun and verb forms.

Right. The word you proffer simply means chosen. The word translated "elect" is specific, and means to "select," by implication "favorites."

Same thing with the noun form.

Now you move away from your Greek language argument, to make a sweeping assumption, but as in the Greek, there is careful distinction made in the Hebrew language between simple choosing, and efficacious election.

The LXX translates it as "eklektos"

The Hebrew word generally translated, "chosen," is "bachar," which denotes "to try."

However, the Hebrew word referring to God's elect, is "bachiyr." e.g. I Chronicles 16:13, Psalm 89:3, 105:42&43, Isaiah 43:20&21, 65:15. These few and specific verses refer to the spiritual remnant of individuals saved by the grace of God, and do not refer to the "chosen," ("bachar") nation of Israel as a whole.

In these passages God's elect people are identified specifically as being, "the seed of Jacob," "My servant David," "Abraham His servant," people I have formed for Myself," differentiating them from the unfaithful nation of Israel. Here is the contrast revealed by God between the "chosen" nation of Israel, and His "elect" and saved individuals:

"I was sought by those who did not ask for Me; I was found by those who did not seek Me. I said, 'Here I am, here I am,' to a nation that was not called by My name' . . .
Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold My servants shall drink, but you will be thirsty; behold, My servants shall rejoice, but you shall be ashamed; behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you shall cry for sorrow of heart and wail for grief of spirit. You shall leave your name as a curse to My chosen ("bachiyr"); for the Lord God will slay you, and call His servants by another name.'" Isaiah 65:1, 13-15


Thus, the chosen ("bachar") nation of Israel will be cursed, but out of her, God has elected ("bachiyr") His servants who are promised all the blessings of God.



The noun form matters. Isa. 43:20 uses "bachiyr", and Deut. 14:2 uses "bachar."

I consider the distinction to be important, but you are casually lumping references together without taking notice of the detailed nuances of the original Hebrew and Greek.

Which website did you quote that from?

1 Chr 16:1 And they brought in the ark of God and placed it inside the tent which David had pitched for it, and they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God. 2 When David had finished offering the burnt offering and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord. 3 He distributed to everyone of Israel, both man and woman, to everyone a loaf of bread and a portion [of meat] and a raisin cake. 4 He appointed some of the Levites [as] ministers before the ark of the Lord, even to celebrate and to thank and praise the Lord God of Israel: 5 Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, [then] Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-edom and Jeiel, with musical instruments, harps, lyres; also Asaph [played] loud-sounding cymbals, 6 and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests [blew] trumpets continually before the ark of the covenant of God. 7 Then on that day David first assigned Asaph and his relatives to give thanks to the Lord. 8 Oh give thanks to the Lord, call upon His name; Make known His deeds among the peoples. 9 Sing to Him, sing praises to Him; Speak of all His wonders. 10 Glory in His holy name; Let the heart of those who seek the Lord be glad. 11 Seek the Lord and His strength; Seek His face continually. 12 Remember His wonderful deeds which He has done, His marvels and the judgments from His mouth, 13 O seed of Israel His servant, Sons of Jacob, His chosen ones! 14 He is the Lord our God; His judgments are in all the earth. 15 Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, 16 [The covenant] which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac. 17 He also confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant, 18 Saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan, As the portion of your inheritance." 19 When they were only a few in number, Very few, and strangers in it, 20 And they wandered about from nation to nation, And from [one] kingdom to another people, 21 He permitted no man to oppress them, And He reproved kings for their sakes, [saying], 22 "Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm." 23 Sing to the Lord, all the earth;​

Unless you're going to lay claim to the land that Israel now lives upon, the land of Cannan, this "elect" are the corporately elected Old Covenant Israel.

(Yes, 16:13 is one of the verses you cited to me. Maybe you should research what you cut and paste before you post it.)

Right, because this is a different word used than "bachiyr" that specifies and identifies those elect who were/are saved by faith in the promises of God.

You fail to make careful distinction between the words used.

LOL... Distinction made.

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Another quick question: Why is human free will imperialized over God's sovereignty here? I mean if we 'have' to negate something, why God's sovereignty for discussion?

First, human free will isn't "imperialized" over God's sovereign free will. It IS placed before meticulous control, but a proper understanding of God's sovereignty, namely His righteousness and His justice prevailing over all creation, is retained.

I don't believe it is a matter of illogic as it is a difference in foundational premise.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

I'd like to try one more time on this. I'm sure I'll never set the record straight, and I feel like Jeremiah sometimes (ever proclaiming, never really heard).

There is no way we can find contradiction in timelessness because it escapes sensibilities and logic, and really our perception to do so. We either take God at His Word, or we negate what He says.

Except that God never says that He is atemporal. Further, the way God represents Himself in Scripture is very temporal. God uses temporal language about Himself in Genesis 22:12 when He says, "NOW I know..."

This isn't to say that God is subject to created time, but it does indicate that God experiences a succession of events.

And the idea of ex nihilo creation demands a temporal existence as well, since the earth must not exists before it exists, and God must experience a "time" when the earth doesn't exist before He can act to bring it into existence.

So, atemporality has major issue with Scripture.

God has foreknowledge because the Bible gives the term.

The question isn't whether God has foreknowledge, but whether God has exhaustive and definite foreknowledge, or whether God knows all possible courses of the future and how He will accomplish His purposes.

OV very much confuses this 'definition' and does not at all understand it. In discussing the actual term, I've never gotten any OV theist to actually state the very obvious. They either equate foreknowledge with foreordination or they equate it with predictability, but they never seem to get the definition correct nor acknowledge it is a Biblical term and mean the same thing the definition means.

Well, I find it odd that someone can hold to atemporality and "fore"knowledge, since foreknowledge implies that something is known before it happens. That requires a temporal existence.

I think the key is to properly understand what and when God foreknows in order to understand how He foreknows. There is nothing in Scripture that says that God foreknows the entire course of history.

Some will say God knows 'some' but this puts their own logic on trial. If God knows anything future, they are contradicting themselves in a logical conundrum by their own argument.


Unless, of course, all possible courses of the future run through a particular event.

Foreknowledge simply means 'KNOWS' 'BEFORE' and it is a scripturally given term.

Which is exactly why an atemporal God cannot have it.

OV has to toss the term from their Bibles entirely before they could escape the implication: The OV logic handle is broken from scripture, therefore imperializes logic over revelation. What is revealed is that God has 'foreknowledge' despite how it disturbs logic ability to grasp it. To continually argue this is to argue against scripture, not 'my' logic.

Well, when we take what Scripture actually says about foreknowledge, rather than the preconceived notion of the protestant theologian about what foreknowledge must be, things become much clearer.

Free will is a derived idea. God's sovereignty is a scriptural given. Illogical thought is a derivation, Foreknowledge is a scripturally given. How come OV continues to imperialize the derivatives and ignores the Scripturally implicit?

Actually, free will is a Scriptural given. Without free will, there can be no moral judgment, nor can there be relationship.

God's sovereignty is also a Scriptural given, but we must adopt the Scriptural view of God's sovereignty, not the reformed view of it. Only then are these two harmonized.

The only truly worthy free will discussion is related to our position in Christ. Until then we are 'robots' to sin without question with no ability to escape routine.

So, the unbeliever must sin at every possible opportunity?

Once we are in Christ, we have a new set of routine possibilities where we can choose the two, but the color of a shirt isn't exactly earth shaking whether I'm truly free to choose or not. It is trivial. What is more important is whether we live for Christ or not and serving one of two masters. I simply cannot imperialize free will choices over His sovereignty. The only free will choice I think is worthy of discussion is whether I wake and do my own thing OR say "This is the day the Lord has made, I'll rejoice and be glad in it."

Not sure how you escape meticulous control with that.

However, once again, if we take a more normal view of Sovereignty, there really isn't an issue.

This is saying man has absolutely no free will until conversion. Our only meaningful discussion into free will is a salvific issue. The rest is mute.

Whether the rest is moot may be up for discussion. I don't see why one must toss aside all other free will decisions to only discuss this one, even if it is the most importnat one.

Joh 13:11 For Jesus knew the one who was going to betray him. Foreknowledge

But when did Jesus know it?

Ephesians 2:10 "...for good works that God prepared beforehand..." Foreordination

When and what was foreordained?

There is a difference between these definitions: guess, plan, and know.

If foreknowledge negates free will, it is still a scripturally given contention that must be recognized and evaluated honestly and biblically.

Let's make sure that we're talking about exhaustive and definite foreknowledge, as you appear to be using this term in this way.

Just saying it is 'illogical' is not a compelling argument to me because my logic is subject to the fall and I hold all other's logical problems as subject to that same fall. God's revelation is right regardless. Foreknowledge is a scripturally given concept, God has it. Logic is troubled. I dare not negate a scriptural truth for a derived or logically apparent one (as opposed to logically implicit).

I agree. The question isn't whether there is foreknowledge, but whether there is exhaustive and definite foreknowledge. I posit that God knows all possible courses of the future and knows how His actions would affect those possible courses. That's foreknowledge, too.

I also posit that God knows He will resurrect those who placed their faith in Him, and they will have eternal life. Again, that's foreknowledge.

So, I think the key is to get back to a biblical understanding of sovereignty and foreknowledge, and discover how they fit into free will and temporality.

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Which website did you quote that from?

If it had been cut and pasted from a web site, I would quote it and attribute the words. My posts are my words and my thoughts and my beliefs.




1 Chr 16:1 And they brought in the ark of God and placed it inside the tent which David had pitched for it, and they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God. 2 When David had finished offering the burnt offering and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord. 3 He distributed to everyone of Israel, both man and woman, to everyone a loaf of bread and a portion [of meat] and a raisin cake. 4 He appointed some of the Levites [as] ministers before the ark of the Lord, even to celebrate and to thank and praise the Lord God of Israel: 5 Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, [then] Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-edom and Jeiel, with musical instruments, harps, lyres; also Asaph [played] loud-sounding cymbals, 6 and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests [blew] trumpets continually before the ark of the covenant of God. 7 Then on that day David first assigned Asaph and his relatives to give thanks to the Lord. 8 Oh give thanks to the Lord, call upon His name; Make known His deeds among the peoples. 9 Sing to Him, sing praises to Him; Speak of all His wonders. 10 Glory in His holy name; Let the heart of those who seek the Lord be glad. 11 Seek the Lord and His strength; Seek His face continually. 12 Remember His wonderful deeds which He has done, His marvels and the judgments from His mouth, 13 O seed of Israel His servant, Sons of Jacob, His chosen ones! 14 He is the Lord our God; His judgments are in all the earth. 15 Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, 16 [The covenant] which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac. 17 He also confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant, 18 Saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan, As the portion of your inheritance." 19 When they were only a few in number, Very few, and strangers in it, 20 And they wandered about from nation to nation, And from [one] kingdom to another people, 21 He permitted no man to oppress them, And He reproved kings for their sakes, [saying], 22 "Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm." 23 Sing to the Lord, all the earth."

Unless you're going to lay claim to the land that Israel now lives upon, the land of Cannan, this "elect" are the corporately elected Old Covenant Israel.

(Yes, 16:13 is one of the verses you cited to me. Maybe you should research what you cut and paste before you post it.)


Yes, I cited I Chronicles 16:13 for a purpose; that purpose being the specific indentification of who exactly are God's elect ("bachiyr") revealed in this passage speaking of the nation of Israel as a whole ("bachar").

God made temporal promises to the nation of Israel, but from within that nation, there was a remnant of elect, who are identified with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (I have bolded this revelation in your quote above.)

Abraham was given the temporal covenant promises of land from God, as did the nation of Israel, but because of the Holy Spirit and the gift of faith given to Abraham, he understood the temporal promises contained eternal promises of everlasting life:

"By faith, Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God . . .These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return, but now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them" Hebrews 11:8-10, 13-16

Within this passage we learn Abraham received the promises of a temporal covenant of land, but also we learn that Abraham believed in God's future and eternal promises of inheritance in His heavenly kingdom. The eternal promises given to him were foreshadowed by the temporal promises.

There was a covenant given of temporal land to Israel, and there is also an "Everlasting Covenant" promised of redemption to an elect people from the spiritual lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

You are confusing temporal blessing with eternal salvation. You confuse unsaved sinners, held under covenant of law with saved souls blessed under covenant of grace. And this distinction is scriptural and continually applicable; during O.T as well as N.T.

And here it is . . .right before your eyes . . .you are quoting it to me, but you don't see it!!!

God does not elect and save entire nations. God elects and saves individuals out of all nations. Eternal truths are discovered in temporal events. (Heb. 8:5, 10:1)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Nang,

For you argument concerning the practical differences between the terms "Eklegomai" and "eklektos" to be accurate in such a way as to support your theology, you would have to show that 'eklektos' implies choosing on an arbitrary basis. That's a problem for you because that isn't what the term means at all. It means pretty much exactly what our word "elect" means (not your theological definition but the normative definition). If someone is elected to office for example, he was not elected randomly nor arbitrarily but because he not only sought to be elected but was deemed to be qualified for the office by the electorate. The Biblical concept is very similar. There is simply no hint of the arbitrary election of either nations nor of individuals in the Bible but rather election is based on faith. If you have faith you are elect, if you don't you aren't. The nation of Israel (as a whole) was elected to an office on the basis of Abraham's faith for example.

Further, your attempt to distinguish the two term as though they mean entirely different things cannot be sustained by even a casual study of the Biblical term "elect", the first mention of which is in Isaiah 42:1, a clear messianic passage...

Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.​

That is to say that this is the first time the English word "elect" is used in the Bible. The Hebrew word used here is 'bachiyr' which means "chosen, choice one, chosen one, elect (of God)". (source) The first time the Hebrew word is used is back in 2 Samuel 21:6...

2 Samuel 21:6 Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, [whom] the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give [them].​

In fact in the King James the Hebrew word "bachiyr" is translated the following ways...

Chosen: 8 Times
Elect: 4 Times
Chose: 1 Time

Next time, if you are going to argue about the words in the original languages, you should at the very least get your Strong's Concordance out or do a Google search or something.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
If it had been cut and pasted from a web site, I would quote it and attribute the words. My posts are my words and my thoughts and my beliefs.







Yes, I cited I Chronicles 16:13 for a purpose; that purpose being the specific indentification of who exactly are God's elect ("bachiyr") revealed in this passage speaking of the nation of Israel as a whole ("bachar").

God made temporal promises to the nation of Israel, but from within that nation, there was a remnant of elect, who are identified with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (I have bolded this revelation in your quote above.)

Abraham was given the temporal covenant promises of land from God, as did the nation of Israel, but because of the Holy Spirit and the gift of faith given to Abraham, he understood the temporal promises contained eternal promises of everlasting life:

"By faith, Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God . . .These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return, but now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them" Hebrews 11:8-10, 13-16

Within this passage we learn Abraham received the promises of a temporal covenant of land, but also we learn that Abraham believed in God's future and eternal promises of inheritance in His heavenly kingdom. The eternal promises given to him were foreshadowed by the temporal promises.

There was a covenant given of temporal land to Israel, and there is also an "Everlasting Covenant" promised of redemption to an elect people from the spiritual lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

You are confusing temporal blessing with eternal salvation. You confuse unsaved sinners, held under covenant of law with saved souls blessed under covenant of grace. And this distinction is scriptural and continually applicable; during O.T as well as N.T.

And here it is . . .right before your eyes . . .you are quoting it to me, but you don't see it!!!

God does not elect and save entire nations. God elects and saves individuals out of all nations. Eternal truths are discovered in temporal events. (Heb. 8:5, 10:1)

Did you read 1 Chronicals 16:18?

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Nang,

For you argument concerning the practical differences between the terms "Eklegomai" and "eklektos" to be accurate in such a way as to support your theology, you would have to show that 'eklektos' implies choosing on an arbitrary basis. That's a problem for you because that isn't what the term means at all.

Agreed. The term is not arbitrary, and you misread me if you think I believe Godly election was arbitrary on the part of God. God chose His elect IN Christ. They are "created in Christ" (Eph. 2:10) to do the good works "prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

God's election was according to purpose, and design.

So you present a straw man and an empty argument with me.



It means pretty much exactly what our word "elect" means (not your theological definition but the normative definition). If someone is elected to office for example, he was not elected randomly nor arbitrarily but because he not only sought to be elected but was deemed to be qualified for the office by the electorate.

I agree. God is the "electorate" who has "selected" (eklektos") souls who are deemed qualified by God because they were chosen, created, and "accepted in the Beloved." Elect believers are worthy of their election, because of the righteousness and worthiness of the first Elect of God, Jesus Christ. Isa. 42:1



The Biblical concept is very similar. There is simply no hint of the arbitrary election of either nations nor of individuals in the Bible but rather election is based on faith.

Where does the Bible teach this? Are you saying that if sinners conjure up faith, God elects them according to human virtue and merit? (You do know what the name of that heresy is, do you not?)

No. God elected His people to be saved according to the merits and virtues of His Son, before the foundation of the world, and the gift of grace through faith issues from this decree and Covenant.

Election produces faith.

Faith does not produce election.



If you have faith you are elect, if you don't you aren't.

If you are elect, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, you have saving faith. If you are not elect, or remain unsaved, you have no saving faith. Even if you say you have faith, but you are not elect and not saved, the faith you confess is "dead." That is the teachings of the Lord's brother, James. (James 2:14-26)


The nation of Israel (as a whole) was elected to an office on the basis of Abraham's faith for example.

NO! The nation of Israel was chosen to receive the temporal promise of land, as given to Abraham. But the Everlasting Covenant of grace unto eternal life was given to only a small remnant from within the nation.

Further, your attempt to distinguish the two term as though they mean entirely different things cannot be sustained by even a casual study of the Biblical term "elect", the first mention of which is in Isaiah 42:1, a clear messianic passage...

Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.​

That is to say that this is the first time the English word "elect" is used in the Bible. The Hebrew word used here is 'bachiyr' which means "chosen, choice one, chosen one, elect (of God)". (source) The first time the Hebrew word is used is back in 2 Samuel 21:6...

2 Samuel 21:6 Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, [whom] the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give [them].​

I agree with all this. You are making my point and using my argument. The Hebrew word "bachiyr" denotes eternal salvation in the Elect ("bachiyr") Son of God prophesized by Isaiah.

And the word is used in the II Samuel 21 passage as well, but a little harder to explain, in that the men saved were not necessarily regenerated, but they were shown mercy due to God keeping His oath to Jonathon (II Sam. 21:7), who was indeed saved. The application of "bachiyr" to these men is indirect, so I did not use this Scripture in my examples . . .but you are correct to point it out.

In fact in the King James the Hebrew word "bachiyr" is translated the following ways...

Chosen: 8 Times
Elect: 4 Times
Chose: 1 Time

Indeed, but we are not discussing the English translations, but the original Hebrew and Greek. There is where important distinction is made, which you also point out. The confusion comes from lumping the English words, "chosen" and "elect" all together, and that was the point of my discussion with Muz.

Next time, if you are going to argue about the words in the original languages, you should at the very least get your Strong's Concordance out or do a Google search or something.

I don't see where your language argument is any different than mine; however your covenant teachings are severely lacking. And bringing up the straw man of arbitrariness, simply has nothing to do with what I have posted.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Yes, and I understand it, too.

Did you read the Hebrews 11 passages I quoted that explain this?

Hebrews 11 says that they weren't waiting for an earthly city. 1 Chr 16:18 specifically refers to earthly land of Cannan. Thus, we're talking about two different Covenants.

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Hebrews 11 says that they weren't waiting for an earthly city. 1 Chr 16:18 specifically refers to earthly land of Cannan. Thus, we're talking about two different Covenants.

Muz


Well, :duh: . . . that is exactly what I am trying to point out to you.

The temporal covenant of the land was fulfilled through the nation of Israel, and the everlasting covenant of the heavenly kingdom is fulfilled through an elect ("bachiyr") remnant from within the nation. The Abrahamic Covenant contained both temporal and eternal promises.

Both are revealed in the I Chronicles 16 passage, if one looks carefully; especially taking notice of the original Hebrew language that makes distinction between "bachar" and "bachiyr."
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Well, :duh: . . . that is exactly what I am trying to point out to you.

And you don't get the obvious implication when you drop your assumptions. This passage is speaking of earthly Cannan and Old Covenant Israel. Nothing more.

The temporal covenant of the land was fulfilled through the nation of Israel, and the everlasting covenant of the heavenly kingdom is fulfilled through an elect ("bachiyr") remnant from within the nation. The Abrahamic Covenant contained both temporal and eternal promises.

Ah, but these "elect" are the Old Covenant folks. Nothing more. There is no sense in which this refers to the New Covenant in any way.

It is only your imposition on the text that brings this here. These chosen ones are the elect of the Old Covenant.

Both are revealed in the I Chronicles 16 passage, if one looks carefully; especially taking notice of the original Hebrew language that makes distinction between "bachar" and "bachiyr."

But your distinction is arbitrary. You've given no basis for making this distinction, and this particular passage violates your rule.

You've constructed a circular argument.

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
And you don't get the obvious implication when you drop your assumptions. This passage is speaking of earthly Cannan and Old Covenant Israel. Nothing more.

This is a very rich portion of Scripture, but you are blind to all that it reveals.

It explicitly mentions, "The seed of Israel His servant, you children of Jacob, His chosen ("bachiyr") ones." Who is the "seed" but the Elect ("bachiyr") of God, Jesus Christ? Who are the "children of Jacob, His ("bachiyr") ones," but the spiritual seed of Abraham.

There is another passage of Scripture that explains all this, that we have discussed before, but I will insert it here again, for others that may be reading and attempting to understand:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one (Ishmael) by a bondwoman, the other (Isaac) by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise; which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar . . for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children . . but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

For it is written, 'Rejoice, O barren; you who do not bear! Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband.'

Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according the the Spirit, even so it is now.

Nevertheless, what does the Scriptures say? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." Galatians 4:22-31



Ah, but these "elect" are the Old Covenant folks. Nothing more. There is no sense in which this refers to the New Covenant in any way.

This is a lapse on your part into dispensationalism. The O.T. does not necessarily correspond with the old covenant, and the N.T. does not necessarily correspond to the new covenant.

People are not time periods . . .one is either a person of flesh, remaining under the old covenant of the law. Or one is a person born of Spirit, brought under the new covenant of grace. And this is applicable to all persons of every era, O.T. and N.T.

One is either remaining in bondage to the flesh, sin, death and the devil or one is freed in the spirit through the grace and justification of Jesus Christ.



It is only your imposition on the text that brings this here. These chosen ones are the elect of the Old Covenant.

You are confusing two people and two covenants. Are you not interested in distinguishing between the two?

Abraham had two sons. One was elect (Isaac) and the other (Ishmael) was non-elect.

God provided temporal, earthly, covenant (promise of nationhood and land) with both, but a different, spiritual, and everlasting covenant (heavenly inheritance in the Kingdom of God) only to the elect and spiritual lineage of Isaac and Jacob.

Ishmael was a child born of flesh. Isaac was the child of Godly promise.

Ishmael was born of Hagar, a bondwoman. Isaac was born from "Jerusalem above" (heavenly) who is free and the mother of all the elect sons of God.

"Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise." Gal. 4:28

"And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29

"You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'" Acts 3:25


The Acts passage was directed to Jews, who were first under the old, earthly covenant, but also given the promises of the new covenant:

"To you, first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities. . . Many of those who heard the word, believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand." Acts 3:26, 4:4



But your distinction is arbitrary. You've given no basis for making this distinction, and this particular passage violates your rule.

You've constructed a circular argument.

I am giving you Scripture, Muz. Much Scripture. In fact, these truths are taught throughout Scripture.

There has always been two kinds of "seed." Beginning with the contrast between Cain and Abel. Cain was a seed of flesh; Abel a spiritual seed, who evidenced belief in the promises of God.

You cannot just lump all mankind together, or distinguish them according to time dispensations and/or race.

You cannot lump all Godly covenants together, for God provides differently between the (eternal) elect and (temporal) non-elect.
 

lee_merrill

New member
People are not time periods . . .one is either a person of flesh, remaining under the old covenant of the law. Or one is a person born of Spirit, brought under the new covenant of grace. And this is applicable to all persons of every era, O.T. and N.T.
That's a good point, note Paul talking to the Galatians "once we were under the law" and so on.

Abraham had two sons. One was elect (Isaac) and the other (Ishmael) was non-elect.
Not to mention Jacob and Esau, "for not all of those from Israel are Israel."

"Unless the Lord had left us a remnant, we would have become like Sodom..." (Paul, quoting Isaiah)

"So there is at the present time, a remnant chosen by grace" (Romans 9-11), as there was in Isaiah's day, chosen from Israel, chosen from the Gentiles.

Further thoughts on corporate election here.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Agreed. The term is not arbitrary, and you misread me if you think I believe Godly election was arbitrary on the part of God. God chose His elect IN Christ. They are "created in Christ" (Eph. 2:10) to do the good works "prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
Israel was not elect in Christ nor was anyone else prior to Paul! There is no teaching outside of Paul's epistles to the Body of Christ about anyone being identified in Christ in any respect! Moses, for example, was not in Christ nor is he now! Moses didn't know anything of the gospel of grace Nang. You cannot read the New Testament (especially Paul's writings which were about a gospel kept secret in God until they were revealed to Paul) and transfer the understanding we have to those in the Old Testament. That is a fundamental error in Biblical hermeneutics.

God's election was according to purpose, and design.
Don't play stupid games with me Nang. I'm not stupid and I probably know what you believe (as a Calvinist) better than you do! The doctrine of elections is fundamentally arbitrary. God chooses, according to Calvinism, whomever He chooses because He wills to choose them - period. That's text book arbitrariness and it is what Calvinism teaches thus the term "Unconditional Election" in the 'TULIP'. Don't make me quote the WSF, Nang.

So you present a straw man and an empty argument with me.
You're a liar Nang. Pure and simple. You know full well what my argument was and you chose to intentionally misrepresent it. I won't let you get away with it either. You'll either address the point or I'll hammer you with it until you vomit or leave.

I agree. God is the "electorate" who has "selected" (eklektos") souls who are deemed qualified by God because they were chosen, created, and "accepted in the Beloved." Elect believers are worthy of their election, because of the righteousness and worthiness of the first Elect of God, Jesus Christ. Isa. 42:1
But you believe that they were so elected on an arbitrary basis. That the elect are no different from anyone else except that everyone else just happens not to have been chosen. There was nothing in any of the elect that caused God to choose them over any of the other, He just did and that's that. That's the very definition of the word 'arbitrary', Nang and you know it and you also know that the word "elect" in any language does not imply an arbitrary selection.

Where does the Bible teach this? Are you saying that if sinners conjure up faith, God elects them according to human virtue and merit? (You do know what the name of that heresy is, do you not?)
Where does it not teach it? Show me one example of a person who was declared righteous apart from his having demonstrated faith in God first.

Just one will do.

And as for heresy. You can call me a heretic all you like. Sticks and stones. Unless shown by Scripture and plain reason, I will not recant.

If you are elect, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, you have saving faith. If you are not elect, or remain unsaved, you have no saving faith. Even if you say you have faith, but you are not elect and not saved, the faith you confess is "dead." That is the teachings of the Lord's brother, James. (James 2:14-26)
You are a liar, Nang. James was no Calvinist. He was a Jew and a believer in and a follower of Jesus Christ. He was therefore saved, not the other way around.

NO! The nation of Israel was chosen to receive the temporal promise of land, as given to Abraham. But the Everlasting Covenant of grace unto eternal life was given to only a small remnant from within the nation.
The entire nation of Israel was elected based on the faith of Abraham to not only take possession of some real-estate but to bring forth the Messiah and to bring salvation to the world and had they responded to their risen Messiah in faith they would have done just that but they did not respond in faith, therefore God cut them off just as He warned then He would do in Jeremiah 18. A chapter of the Bible, by the way, that your theology cannot survive even a casual reading of.

I agree with all this. You are making my point and using my argument. The Hebrew word "bachiyr" denotes eternal salvation in the Elect ("bachiyr") Son of God prophesized by Isaiah.
You are stupid on top of being a liar. Do you know how to read Nang? I wasn't using your argument I was using the opposite of your argument! You are the one who said that "elect" refers to those who will be saved and that the word for "chosen" refers to something else but I demonstrated that the word that the Bible uses for elect it is used interchangably for BOTH "chosen" and "elect"! It's the same word! If you are chosen then you are elect and if you are elect you are chosen. It's the exact same word in the original language. If you want to dispute that then you'll have to toss the first mention principle right out the window because it proves you wrong Nang. Your theology is unbiblical in just about every imaginable way. Nearly every argument you guys come up with seems to turn out to be backward from what the Bible actually teaches. If I didn't think you were simply spouting off nonsense that either your husband or some other teacher has pressed into your naive head, I'd have no other option but to conclude that you are not a Christian in the Biblical sense of the term.

And the word is used in the II Samuel 21 passage as well, but a little harder to explain, in that the men saved were not necessarily regenerated, but they were shown mercy due to God keeping His oath to Jonathon (II Sam. 21:7), who was indeed saved. The application of "bachiyr" to these men is indirect, so I did not use this Scripture in my examples . . .but you are correct to point it out.
Did you just concede that people can be saved and not be "necessarily regenerated"?

Nang, why don't you just drop this insanity? It has to be obvious even to you that your whole worldview is crumbling to dust around your ankles.

Indeed, but we are not discussing the English translations, but the original Hebrew and Greek. There is where important distinction is made, which you also point out. The confusion comes from lumping the English words, "chosen" and "elect" all together, and that was the point of my discussion with Muz.
THEY ARE THE SAME WORD YOU BUBBLING FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!

bachiyr is used interchangeably for both terms!!!! :bang:

I don't see where your language argument is any different than mine; however your covenant teachings are severely lacking.
I'll take this as a compliment. Covenant theology is a false teaching and I can prove it.

And bringing up the straw man of arbitrariness, simply has nothing to do with what I have posted.
You are indeed either stupid or a liar or both.

Why is it so impossible to have a simple English conversation with a Calvinist? If your theology is so right and so Biblical and so Godly and wise and impregnable, why do Calvinists UNIVERSALLY resort to intentionally dishonest tactics when dealing with arguments against their theology? I mean if you believe that God chose people for no reason at all that had anything to do with the people He chose, then why not just say so? Why play stupid games and pretend like the word arbitrary means something altogether different than what it actually means? No one suggested that Calvinism teaches that God had no reason behind why He chose to elect people. On the contrary, Calvinism teaches that for whatever reason, I sure it must have been a good one, God did indeed choose to elect people but which people were elected was decided on an entirely arbitrary basis, and there is no way you will ever convince me that you didn't know that this is what I was talking about. But it's not as if you're alone in the employment of such dishonest tactics. Every single Calvinist I have ever come across (I seriously cannot think of a single exception) has done the exact same thing, if not in regards to this issue then some other issue) but regardless of the issue, I don't understand why you guys all feel it justified to defend your theology falsely? How does that compute in the brain of anyone who calls themselves a Christian? Is it that you guys are all just stupid? I don't think so! AMR is not stupid, he's the head of not only his own household but of countless students as well and thus is entirely without excuse. You, on the other hand, are the head of nothing except perhaps your own children and so you don't hold the same burden as someone like your husband or AMR, but that doesn't excuse you from being honest when dealing with issues that pertain to what you almost certainly consider to be the very gospel itself! I just honestly don't get it! Wouldn't it be more productive for you to either respond to the actual arguments made against you or else to admit that you don't know how to respond than to spend all the effort it must take to figure out how to turn the argument upside down and thereby respond to something that wasn't said, ignoring what was actually said and then forcing the memory of the real point made against you out of your head? I mean come on! I'd sooner hit myself over the head than to go through all that effort to argue against a point that I know was never made! :hammer:

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This is quite obvious.

This is just one more example of what I'm talking about!

Anything substantive you just flippantly blow off or twist upside down. Why not just respond to the arguments? Are you scared you can't defend your beliefs uprightly? Is that it?
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
This is just one more example of what I'm talking about!

Anything substantive you just flippantly blow off or twist upside down. Why not just respond to the arguments? Are you scared you can't defend your beliefs uprightly? Is that it?

I have spent half this day giving my Scriptural arguments. All I could do at this point, is repeat them, and I do not care to, just to satisfy your temper tantrum.

If you do not grasp my argument the first time, that is too bad.

I feel no need to defend myself, nor am I obligated to put up with your bad behavior.

Nang
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top